Measures of Student Learning GB Edition II
45
1 EDITION II
Transcript of Measures of Student Learning GB Edition II
1
EDITION II
2
The contents of this guidebook were developed under a Race to the Top grant from the Department of Education. However, those contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.
3
Table of Contents LETTER FROM THE COMMISSIONER ....................................................................................................................... 5
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 BACKGROUND…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….7USING MULTIPLE MEASURES……………………………………..……………..………………………………………………….…………………….7 CHANGES TO THE STUDENT LEARNING OBJECTIVE PROCESS.………………………………………………………………………………8 EDUCATOR PERFORMANCE AND SUPPORT SYSTEM.…………………………………………………………………………………………..9 FLEXIBILITY FACTOR……………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….9
MEASURES OF STUDENT LEARNING ..................................................................................................................... 10 STUDENT LEARNING OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................ 10
The Process for Setting Student Learning Objectives .................................................................................... 14 The Process for Approving and Monitoring Student Learning Objectives ..................................................... 22 The Process for Scoring Student Learning Objectives .................................................................................... 24
THE RHODE ISLAND GROWTH MODEL ..................................................................................................................... 29 STUDENT LEARNING FAQS ....................................................................................................................................... 31
CALCULATING A FINAL EFFECTIVENESS RATING ................................................................................................... 34
FINAL NOTE: THE EVOLVING RHODE ISLAND MODEL ........................................................................................... 38
APPENDICES......................................................................................................................................................... 40 APPENDIX 1: ASSESSMENT QUALITY GUIDANCE...................................................................................................... 40 APPENDIX 2: STUDENT LEARNING OBJECTIVE SCORING LOOKUP TABLES ............................................................... 42
4
This page intentionally left blank
5
Letter from the Commissioner
August 2012
Dear Fellow Educators, As we work together to transform education in Rhode Island, we are focused on ensuring that we have great teachers in every classroom and great leaders in every school and that we provide you with the resources and support you need to do your job well. To meet that goal, we have been working in partnership with educators across the state to develop world-class evaluation systems. We want to be sure that your evaluation system provides you with the valuable insight and feedback you need to help you improve over the course of your career. Over the course of the year, as we transition to our new evaluation systems, we at the R.I. Department of Education (RIDE) have held meetings, webinars, and workshops with hundreds of Rhode Island educators. Throughout this process, we have received lots of feedback about what’s working well and about what problems you may have encountered during the first year of evaluations. We take this feedback seriously and, as a result, we have incorporated your ideas and made changes that will streamline and improve the evaluation process. These improvements, along with the Educator Performance and Support System (EPSS), will make the evaluation cycle more accurate, transparent, and consistent. All of these improvements will ease the transition to a robust and comprehensive evaluation system for full implementation in this school year. This handbook will guide you through the process for including measures of student learning in educator evaluations. I encourage you to use this handbook as a resource, an invitation, and a challenge. I invite you to continue talking – with one another, with your students, and with us. What works best? How can we continue to improve the process in future years? What are your students and colleagues teaching you about what it means to be a great educator? What can you teach others? We at RIDE are here to support you through workshops, webinars, and training tools. I encourage you to visit us online, at http://ride.ri.gov/EducatorQuality/EducatorEvaluation, for additional resources. Please continue to send your comments and suggestions on evaluations to us, at [email protected]. I hope your Evaluation and Support System will inspire you and your colleagues to continuously improve and to do your best work every day – because yours is the most important work in the world. Sincerely,
Deborah A. Gist Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education
6
This page intentionally left blank
7
Introduction
An effective teacher can change the course of a student’s life. Research has shown that teacher quality is the single most important school-based factor influencing student achievement, so naturally, a top priority for school leaders should be giving teachers the guidance and support they need to be successful. In addition, we must ensure that every school has an effective school leader who supports teachers in driving student achievement gains. A fair and accurate evaluation system is our best tool for developing and improving the effectiveness of our educators, while also recognizing the outstanding performance of our most effective teachers and leaders.
Background In 2009, the Rhode Island Board of Regents for Elementary and Secondary Education adopted the Rhode Island Educator Evaluation System Standards, which are designed to help school districts build rigorous, fair, and accurate educator evaluation systems. These standards were guided by research, recommendations from the Consortium for Policy Research in Education, and the Rhode Island Urban Education Task Force. The standards state that an evaluation system must:
Establish a common understanding of expectations for educator quality within the district;
Emphasize the professional growth and continuous improvement of individual educators;
Create an organizational approach to the collective professional growth and continuous improvement of groups of educators to support district goals;
Provide quality assurance for the performance of all district educators;
Assure fair, accurate, and consistent evaluations; and
Provide district educators a role in guiding the ongoing system development in response to systematic feedback and changing district needs.
Using these six standards as a foundation, along with the Basic Education Program, educators from across the state have worked together to design improved evaluation systems.
Using Multiple Measures
Evaluating educators using multiple measures of student learning is part of an effort to provide a fair and accurate measure of educator effectiveness. Effectiveness ratings are never determined based on a single assessment or source of evidence. The inclusion of both the Rhode Island Growth Model and Student Learning Objectives allows us to begin to broaden the sources of evidence used to measure student learning for the purposes of evaluation and establish comparability for educators in their evaluations, in both tested and non-tested subjects.
8
Changes to the Student Learning Objective Process RIDE reviewed the feedback that was gathered during the 2011-12 school year and made thoughtful revisions to the Student Learning Objectives process. Below is a side-by-side comparison of the Student Learning Objective process for the 2011-12 school year and the revised process for the 2012-13 school year.
Element 2011-12 2012-13 Scoring Matrix 4X5 Matrix
4X4 Matrix
Form Paper-based process
Educators identified if an SLO was
progress or mastery
The evidence and target sections
were combined into one section
within the form
The administration and scoring
section were combined into one
section within the form
Electronic submission through EPSS
Removed the requirement to specify
progress or mastery at the top of the
form
The evidence and target section of
the form are now broken out into two
different sections
The administration and scoring
section of the form are now broken
out into two different sections
Coverage of students within an SLO
Teachers must include all students
for whom they are responsible within
their set of SLOs (e.g., If a teacher
taught 3 preps, an SLO would be set
for each prep).
Teachers do not need to include all of
the students for whom they are
responsible within their set of SLOs.
However, if they are writing an SLO
for a particular class, the teacher
should not exclude any students in
that class from the SLO (e.g., A
teacher sets SLOs all of the students
in her for her geometry and algebra
classes, but none of the students in
her calculus class). A student or
groups of students cannot be
eliminated from the SLO.
Number of SLOs
Educators set a range of 2-4 SLOs or
approximately one per prep.
Educators set no less than 2 and no
more than 4 SLOs, regardless of
their number of preps
Categories for Scoring Individual SLOs
3 categories: Not Met, Met, and
Exceeded .
4 categories: Not Met, Nearly Met,
Met, and Exceeded.
Categories for Scoring a Set of SLOs
5 categories: Minimal or No
Attainment, Partial, Considerable,
Full, and Exceptional Attainment
4 categories: Minimal, Partial, Full, or
Exceptional Attainment
Scoring a Set of SLOs
Evaluators determined a score for the
set of SLOs
EPSS automatically calculates a
score for the set of SLOs
Title for SLOs set by administrators
School-wide SLOs Building Administrator SLOs
9
Educator Performance and Support System (EPSS) RIDE has developed a computer-based system, the Educator Performance and Support System (EPSS) – an electronic tool to assist educators and their evaluators in collecting and managing evaluation information. It will launch in the 2012-13 school year to support high-quality evaluation implementation through maximizing each educator’s time and resources and providing a single data system for educator evaluation. The EPSS will enhance stakeholder communication, efficiency, and management of the many layers of the evaluation system. A few examples of how EPSS will ease the transition to full implementation include:
Providing a user-friendly way to collect,
manage, and share qualitative and quantitative data on the Evaluation System.
Allowing users to manage activities related to
the evaluation process, such as scheduling observations and conferences, and facilitating two-way communication between evaluators and educators.
RIDE will provide training on the system, which is described in detail at: http://www.ride.ri.gov/educatorquality/educatorevaluation/EPSS.aspx.
Flexibility Factor We recognize that the diversity among districts, schools, and educators requires an evaluation and support system that provides flexibility beyond the minimum requirements. Yet it cannot be so flexible that districts or educators are left on their own to navigate a new system without clarity about what is expected. For the aspects of the Measures of Student Learning component that have room for flexibility and school/district-level discretion, we have clearly separated and labeled different options with a “Flexibility Factor.”
Flexibility Factor The “Flexibility Factor” boxes
will be used throughout the
guidebook to highlight where
schools and districts have an
opportunity to customize
aspects of the Measures of
Student Learning component
and establish policies to meet
their local needs.
Educator Performance Support System (EPSS) Throughout the guide, we will
explain connections to Rhode
Island’s new technology
platform with boxes that look
like this.
10
Measures of Student Learning Student learning is the single most important indicator of educator effectiveness. To that end, every teacher and building administrator in Rhode Island will be evaluated, in part, based upon their impact on student learning. Rhode Island measures student learning in two ways: Student Learning Objectives and the Rhode Island Growth Model (RIGM). This year, every teacher and building administrator in the state will set at least two and no more than four Student Learning Objectives. Beginning in the 2013-14 school year, all teachers who contribute to student learning in mathematics and reading in grades 3-7 will receive a RIGM score. Administrators who oversee students in these grades will also receive a RIGM score.
Student Learning Objectives Student Learning Objectives present an opportunity for teachers and building administrators to be closely involved in shaping the manner in which the performance of their students is measured. With the use of Student Learning Objectives, educators work together to determine how content should be prioritized so that they can establish clear expectations for how student learning should be assessed. Student Learning Objectives allow for the use of multiple measures of assessment, including existing commercial assessments as well as those that are developed by teams of educators. Teachers and administrators will set targets based upon available data and information for their specific population of students. Setting objectives for students’ learning is an effective instructional practice. Throughout the country, effective educators and leaders use academic goal-setting to ensure that every student is making progress. They all follow the same general practice: align goals with standards, measure students’ baseline knowledge, set targets accordingly, and use high quality assessments to measure students’ end-of-year performance. These effective educators track students’ learning data during the year and adjust their instruction to meet students’ evolving needs. Effective goal-setting serves as a framework for the Student Learning Objectives system.
11
Framework for Setting Student Learning Objectives
A Student Learning Objective is a long-term academic goal that educators set for groups of students. Student Learning Objectives can be set for the school year or an interval of instruction appropriate to the teaching assignment (e.g., a single semester for a semester length course). It must be specific and measureable, based on available prior student learning data and information, and aligned with standards, as well as any school and district priorities. Student Learning Objectives should represent the most important learning during an interval of instruction and define a measurable level of progress or mastery that students should attain. Educators can work individually or in teams to develop sets of Student Learning Objectives relevant to specific grade levels, courses, schools, and/or district-wide priorities. All teachers of the same course in the same school should use the same set of objectives, although specific targets should vary if student starting points differ substantially among classes or groups of students. Building level administrators should work together to create a shared set of objectives for their school.
Flexibility Factor Student Learning Objectives:
If a teacher has more than two
course preps or teaches more
than two subjects, she or he
may choose to focus their
Student Learning Objectives
on the preps or subjects that
include the majority of their
students. Or, the teacher may
choose to focus on an area of
greatest need, even if that
includes fewer students.
12
Number and Scope of Student Learning Objectives Educators and evaluators should work together to determine how many Student Learning Objectives are appropriate for their instructional area and teaching load. While it is our aspiration that all students for whom a teacher is responsible be included in his or her set of Student Learning Objectives, we also recognize that sometimes the most effective strategy is to begin by focusing on a specific area of need and expanding over time.
The minimum number of Student Learning Objectives an educator may set is two. Educators should discuss their rationale for selecting a particular prep or subject area with their evaluators when they set the Student Learning Objectives. An individual Student Learning Objective must include all students on the roster for the course or subject area with which the objective is aligned. Furthermore, percentages or particular groups of students may not be excluded. It is advisable to set tiered targets according to students’ starting points because students may begin at varying levels of preparedness. However, the expectation is that all students are making academic gains regardless of where they start. For example, students who begin below grade-level may be expected to make substantial
progress toward course/grade objectives by the end of the instructional interval while students who begin on grade level may be expected to meet or exceed proficiency by the end of the instructional period.
Students who begin an instructional interval below grade-level proficiency should be expected to reduce the gap between their knowledge and grade-level proficiency by the end of the interval of instruction.
Educator Performance Support System
Educators using the EPSS can
write their Student Learning
Objectives in the EPSS, submit
them to their evaluators for review
and approval, and upload
evidence toward their attainment.
Evaluators can also use the EPSS
to approve, give feedback on, and
score the educator’s Student
Learning Objectives.
13
Anatomy of a Student Learning Objective
The table below identifies the required elements of a Student Learning Objective. Each element has been programmed into the EPSS.
Element Description
Objective Statement
Identifies the priority content and learning that is expected during the interval of
instruction. The objective statement should be broad enough that it captures the
major content of an extended instructional period, but focused enough that it can
be measured.
Rationale
Provides a data-driven and/or curriculum-based explanation for the focus of the
Student Learning Objective and indicates if it’s aligned with a building
administrator’s Student Learning Objective.
Aligned Standards Specifies the standards (e.g., CCSS, Rhode Island GSEs, GLEs, or other state or
national standards) with which this objective is aligned.
Students Specifies the number of and grade/class of students to whom this objective
applies.
Interval of Instruction
Specifies whether this objective applies to the entire academic year. For
educators who work with students on a shorter cycle, the length of the interval of
instruction should be defined.
Baseline Data
Describes students’ baseline knowledge, including the source(s) of data and its
relation to the overall course objectives. If baseline data are not available for the
student population to whom the Student Learning Objective applies, data about a
similar student group (such as students taught in a previous year) or national
expectations about student achievement in this area may be referenced.
Target(s)
Describes where the teacher expects students to be at the end of the interval of
instruction. The target should be measureable and rigorous, yet attainable for the
interval of instruction. In most cases, the target should be tiered (differentiated) so
as to be both rigorous and attainable for all students included in the Student
Learning Objective.
Rationale for Target(s)
Explains the way in which the target was determined, including the data source
(e.g., benchmark assessment, historical data for the students in the course,
historical data from past students) and evidence that the data indicate the target
is both rigorous and attainable for all students. Rationale should be provided for
each target.
Evidence Source
Describes which assessment(s) will be used to measure student learning, why the
assessment(s) is appropriate for measuring the objective, and its level of
standardization. Levels will be identified as high (refers to assessments
administered and scored in a standardized manner), medium (refers to
assessments with moderate standardization and may have subjective scoring), or
low (refers to assessments not administered and scored in a standardized manner
Administration
Describes how the measure of student learning will be administered (e.g., once or
multiple times during class or during a designated testing window by the
classroom teacher or someone else).
Scoring
Describes how the evidence will be collected and scored (e.g., scored by the
classroom teacher individually or by a team of teachers; scored once or a
percentage double-scored).
14
Aligning Student Learning Objectives
Building administrators’ Student Learning Objectives are designed to align with the School Improvement Plan and his or her district’s Strategic Plan, and teachers should develop Student Learning Objectives aligned with their administrators’. For some teachers, this will be a very natural connection. Mathematics teachers may write Student Learning Objectives that, if met, will contribute to their administrator’s Student Learning Objective in mathematics. Some teachers may have a less obvious but still important connection to the administrator’s Student Learning Objectives. For example, social studies teachers may have a Student Learning Objective that focuses on students’ ability to write a research report that meets the Common Core’s literacy standards. There are some instances when it may not make sense for a teacher to write a Student Learning Objective aligned with an administrator’s. A music teacher may have Student Learning Objectives that are focused on music theory and practice. A focus of this type, while critical in music, may not align with an administrator’s Student Learning Objective in mathematics or literacy.
The Process for Setting Student Learning Objectives
Setting Student Learning Objectives prompts teachers to answer three key questions:
1. What are the most important skills and knowledge my students must learn?
2. How will I determine if students have learned them?
3. Based on what I know about my students, what is a rigorous and attainable target for how much my students should learn?
These questions align with the three major criteria of a Student Learning Objective: priority of the content, quality of the evidence, and rigor of the target.
Priority of Content Begin the process of setting Student Learning Objectives by determining the most important standards and content in your grade(s) and subject(s). In some cases, priority standards or content may already be identified by your school or district curricula. Ideally, this process will occur just before school starts or early in the school year.
Student Learning Objectives should be horizontally and vertically aligned, when applicable. When a Student Learning Objective is horizontally aligned, all teachers in the same grade level and/or content area collaborate to set Student Learning Objectives and then each teacher sets specific targets based upon his or her own students’ baseline knowledge and skills. Vertically aligned Student Learning Objectives should be consistent with the building administrators’ objectives when appropriate. Building administrators’ objectives, in turn, should
15
be aligned with key district goals and priority metrics and/or the school or district improvement plan. The Student Learning Objective should align with grade level or grade span standards, the Common Core State Standards, or other content-specific standards for a particular content area. In most cases, the Student Learning Objective should cover a significant portion of the standards the educator will teach in the interval of instruction for that course. The overarching concept is that if the objective is met, students should have the essential knowledge and skills necessary for success in the next grade or level of instruction.
Whether or not Student Learning Objectives are set individually or within a team, the target data is analyzed separately for each individual teacher. Your evaluator’s role is to provide opportunities for these grade-level and department-team meetings and to ensure that Student Learning Objectives are of uniformly high quality across grade-levels and content areas, with rigorous, quantifiable targets set for student performance based on high-quality sources of evidence.
Those who are the sole teacher for a particular grade, content area or course should: Whenever possible, collaborate with teachers of the same content area or course
across the district to set Student Learning Objectives.
If that is not possible, collaborate with teachers of other grades or content areas
within your school to help you set your Student Learning Objectives.
Identify Student Learning Objective targets based upon the starting points of your
actual students.
.
Teachers who teach the same grade, content area or course should: Work collaboratively with your grade, subject area, or course colleagues to set
Student Learning Objectives, whenever possible.
Identify Student Learning Objective targets based upon the starting points of your
actual students; however, these targets should be discussed with other teachers of
the same course to ensure consistently rigorous of expectations for students across
classes.
If the students in your classes do not have demonstrably different starting points from
those of your colleagues, your targets should be the same.
.
16
Quality of Evidence High-quality assessments are essential to the accurate measurement of students’ learning. Various assessments may be used as evidence of target attainment, ranging from teacher-created performance tasks to commercial standardized assessments. All teachers who teach the same course (grade-level and subject combination) should use the same sources of evidence for the objectives related to that course. This will promote consistency and fairness for teachers, while ensuring that students across the school are held to the same standards of achievement. Uniform assessments and evidence of student learning for teachers of the same courses will also save time for teachers and evaluators. However, not all assessments are of high quality, regardless of their source. In order to select a high-quality assessment, it is important to identify the intended purpose of the assessment, and its alignment with the content standards and then to select an assessment that can adequately fulfill those purposes. The Comprehensive Assessment System (CAS) Criteria and Guidance (available on the RIDE website) provides an explanation of the purpose of assessment. As that explanation highlights, one of the purposes of assessment is to measure outcomes. This purpose is directly relevant to using assessments for Student Learning Objectives. Also helpful is what the CAS document highlights regarding developing and selecting assessments. As part of the CAS initiative, districts should have Assessment Maps, which provide an overview of assessments currently used within the district, including the name, type, and purpose of each assessment, as well as additional information such as grade level and content area, a brief description of the assessment, scoring procedures, and allowable accommodations. Educators struggling to identify high quality assessments should consult with their district offices for Assessment Maps or other resources. Please refer to Appendix 1 for further guidance on selecting a high-quality assessment.
Rigor of Target
When setting the target(s) for a Student Learning Objective, the teacher should review available baseline data or information. Using these data, he or she should determine if students are entering the course with the necessary prerequisite knowledge or skills. Educators understand that not all incoming students arrive with the same level of preparedness for the content. Like the instruction provided in each classroom, targets may also be tiered to reflect differentiated expectations for learning. For example, if the teacher determines that some students are entering the course without the necessary prerequisite knowledge or skills, he or she should set another target that is both rigorous and attainable for this group of students. Similarly, if the teacher determines that some students are entering the course with prerequisite knowledge or skills that exceed what is expected or required, he or she should set a target that is both rigorous and attainable for this group of students.
17
Targets for students who begin an instructional interval below grade level should be set to reduce the gap between their current and expected performance.
One way to determine if targets are rigorous is to refer to baseline data. Baseline data may take
many forms, including:
prior year assessment scores or grades
beginning-of-year benchmark assessment data
other evidence of students’ learning, such as portfolio work samples
In some cases, baseline data will not be available. For example, kindergarten teachers may not
have access to previous performance data for their students and middle school band instructors
may have students who have never played instruments. In this case, targets should be informed
by past performance of similar groups of students (locally or nationally) or by early year baseline
information. The following is an example section of a Student Learning Objective for second
grade reading using baseline data:
Baseline Data: I am a second grade teacher. When I received my course roster, I used my students’
first grade end-of-year Fountas & Pinnell reading level scores to identify ability groupings within my
class. I found that four students were reading below grade level, 15 were on grade level, and five were
above.
Targets:
1. The four students who are reading below grade level, will move up at least three reading levels.
Students at Level H will move to level K or better, the student at level G will move to level J or
better, and the student at level I will move to level L or better (H K, H K, G J, I L).
2. The fifteen students who are reading on grade level move up at least three levels to reach
proficiency with level M (or higher) texts.
3. The five students who are reading above grade level will move up at least three reading levels to
reach proficiency with level P (or higher) texts.
Rationale for Targets: I know that most students can achieve three levels of growth on the Fountas &
Pinnell scale because 90% of my students moved up at least three reading levels last year. I used
baseline data to establish students’ starting points and then set individualized targets for students who
needed to reduce the gap between their knowledge and grade level proficiency. For the remaining
students, I set a goal for them to improve at least three levels by the end of the year.
18
There are many ways to conceptualize rigor. One way is Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development, which describes the range between a task that can be completed without instructional guidance (independently) and a task that cannot be completed, even with guidance. The most effective instruction aims at the space within this zone because it provides challenge that causes students to learn without frustrating them by being completely inaccessible (see figure below).
Zone of Proximal Development
Setting Student Learning Objective for Diverse Learners English Language Learners English Language Learners should be incorporated in general educator’s Student Learning Objectives. Educators may set differentiated targets to ensure that all students are meeting a rigorous, yet attainable, target. In some cases, evidence may need to be differentiated for English Language Learners to account for how they currently demonstrate content skills and knowledge (this can be found in the WIDA CAN-DO Descriptors by domain and grade level cluster). All educators should ensure their content targets for English Language Learners are informed by students’ language comprehension and communication skills. English as a Second Language teachers whose primary responsibility is students’ language development may set Student Learning Objectives using English Language Development (ELD) goals based on Cook’s profiles (for more information on Cook’s profiles, visit http://www.ride.ri.gov/applications/ell/). Evidence should include ACCESS for English Language Learners, the WIDA Model, or locally developed assessments based on the WIDA standards (speaking, writing rubrics, WIDA summative ELPS, ACCESS released items, etc.). When sufficient numbers of English Language Learners exist in a district, targets can be based on local data on student achievement norms. English Language Development growth should take into account students’ ages and initial proficiency levels. For schools with a significant number of English Language Learners, a Student Learning Objective based on an ELD goal should be developed by building administrators.
Rigorous, yet attainable
Attainable but not rigorous
Rigorous but unattainable
19
Students with Disabilities Student Learning Objectives for students with disabilities should be based upon grade-level content standards, historical data, and other academic information. Given that special education teachers provide instruction in a variety of settings, RIDE has identified three general approaches, as described in the following pages:
The special educator who works with students with disabilities across several grade levels (1-5, for example) who is not assigned to a general educator may follow more of a tiered approach, based upon similar content and sources of evidence and targets appropriate for each grade level. A special educator in this scenario would do the following:
1. Review the content standards for each student’s grade level.
2. Set broad Student Learning Objectives for English Language Arts and/or mathematics standards that apply to all of the students, across multiple grade levels (e.g., reading comprehension).
3. Identify sources of evidence to assess those standards at each grade level or grade
spans (K-1, 2-3, and 4-5, for example).
4. Set targets appropriate for students in each of those grade levels or grade spans.
The special educator who co-teaches as part of a grade level or content team (co-planning, instructing, and assessing) shares the Student Learning Objective of his/her team:
In this scenario, the special educator and the general educator should review standards and data together and agree upon a set of Student Learning Objectives for all of the students they teach. They should monitor student progress together and are jointly responsible for the academic achievement of all students. When a special educator is providing services in a variety of content areas, English Language Arts and mathematics should be prioritized.
20
The special educator who does not fully co-teach with a general educator, but who works with students with disabilities across several classrooms, can take one of two approaches:
1. The special educator can coordinate with the general education teachers in order to support the Student Learning Objectives of students for whom they are mutually responsible. This model is the same regardless of the location of the services – in the general education classroom or elsewhere. In this case, the special educator may provide instruction in the general education classroom, but he/she is only responsible for the students with disabilities to whom they are assigned. It is not a co-teaching model in which the special educator and general educator share responsibility for all students. The special educator and the general educators should only collaborate to set targets for and monitor the progress of students with disabilities (for whom they are both responsible). A special educator in this scenario would do the following:
Provide input to their students’ general education teachers (in the content areas in which they provide services) as they are writing their Student Learning Objectives and setting targets for all students. Ideally, this would mean participating in the grade level or content team meetings when Student Learning Objectives are set.
Discuss and agree upon targets for students with disabilities.
Establish regular communication between general educator and special educator to
monitor student progress.
As an example of the approach above, imagine a special educator who provides ELA and mathematics services to 25 students in grades 3 and 4 in five different classrooms. That special educator should meet with the five general educators as they develop their Student Learning Objective (for all students) and agree upon appropriate targets for the students with disabilities, for which they are both responsible. The special educator should share his or her Student Learning Objectives and targets with each of the general educators and work together with them to ensure student stay on track throughout the instructional interval.
2. The special educator can set broad Student Learning Objectives that apply to all of the students with disabilities to whom they provide instruction, with sources of evidence and tiered targets appropriate for each grade level. A special educator using this model would do the following:
Set broad Student Learning Objectives for English Language Arts and/or mathematics standards that apply to the students with whom they work, across multiple grade levels.
Identify sources of evidence to assess those standards at each grade level or grade
spans (K-1, 2-3, 4-5 for example) and set targets accordingly for students in those grade levels or grade spans. The special educator should always be certain that their targets are aligned as closely as possible with the general education teachers’ grade level team or general education class targets for the students.
Depending upon the general education targets and the identified needs of the students
within those grade levels or grade spans, targets may require additional tiers or differentiation.
21
The special educator should ensure that their Student Learning Objectives are aligned with the Student Learning Objectives of general education teachers instructing students in the same grade(s) and that targets are differentiated based on the identified needs of the students with whom they work.
Though there may be overlap in the content, assessments or evidence used, Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals cannot be used as Student Learning Objectives. There is an important statutory difference between a student’s IEP goals and the Student Learning Objectives used in the Educator Evaluation System, so it is important to keep the two systems and related goals distinct. Broad trends across several students’ IEPs should inform a teacher’s or an instructional team’s Student Learning Objectives. IEP goals, assessments and other evidence may inform Student Learning Objectives if the focus is in content areas of English Language Arts or mathematics, for example, and reflects student academic performance consistent with the general education curriculum at grade level.
Special educators who align instruction to the Alternate Assessment Grade Span Expectations (AAGSEs) should follow the same process to create Student Learning Objectives for their students. Teachers may find standards and skills in ELA and mathematics selected for use in Rhode Island Alternate Assessment helpful in identifying appropriate content for Student Learning Objectives. They can use some of the same pieces of evidence collected for the alternate assessment for Student Learning Objectives, along with other curriculum-embedded measures as long as the separation of the student’s IEP goals and the educator’s Student Learning Objective goals remains intact. Targets should be based on any available data on their students; on baseline data they are able to collect when the Student Learning Objectives are set, and/or data on similar students’ progress and/or mastery in past years. Students Learning Objectives are intended to measure student progress or mastery of academic skills and standards. Instruction around functional, organizational, or social-emotional skills supports students’ access to the general education curriculum. Therefore, general or special educators who instruct students on these skills should link students’ acquisition and application of these skills to the academic content they support whenever possible. When developing Student Learning Objectives that are related to social-emotional/behavior or functional skills, the Student Learning Objective should be stated in positive terms and related to what students will do rather than what they won’t or can’t do. The Student Learning Objective should focus on the positive behavior that will increase, rather than the negative behavior that will decrease.
For example:
Increase the number of days the student attends school per month (NOT: decrease the number of days the student skips school each month).
Students will resolve problems more often by contacting teacher, social worker or counselor
(NOT: decrease the number of times student is sent out of the classroom).
As much as possible, these objectives should focus on specific, measureable, positive behavior
and be monitored using research-based assessments and screening tools.
22
The Process of Approving and Monitoring Student Learning Objectives After the Student Learning Objectives are set, they need to be approved by the evaluator. In order for a Student Learning Objective to be approved, it must be rated as acceptable on three criteria:
1. Priority of Content: Is the objective focused on the right material? 2. Rigor of Target: Does the numerical target represent an appropriate amount of student learning for the specified interval of instruction? 3. Quality of Evidence: Will the evidence source provide the information needed to determine if the objective has been met?
Reviewing Teacher Created Assessments
The evaluator may also want to consult with those who are knowledgeable in the content area or those who have strong assessment knowledge for input on the quality of the assessment. Although only one source of evidence is required, more than one source of evidence may be used for a single Student Learning Objective. If multiple sources of evidence are used, both the
Though all pieces of evidence for Student Learning Objectives must be approved, only those assessments that are teacher created need to be reviewed by the evaluator using the following criteria for high-quality assessments:
The assessment measures all of the standards included in the Student Learning Objective
The assessment includes an adequate number of items or points to measure the content
The assessment includes items or tasks that represent a variety of Depth of Knowledge levels
The assessment is accompanied by a rubric or scoring guide
Flexibility Factor Approving Student Learning
Objectives:
Student Learning Objectives
should be discussed during the
Beginning-of-Year Conference
and approved no later than the
end of the first quarter.
23
Teachers might find it useful to group students (e.g., those on track to meet their target; those on track to exceed their target; and those students not on track to meet their target). These groupings will help teachers differentiate instruction according to the needs of their students and help both teachers and administrators track their own progress toward meeting Student Learning Objective targets.
teacher(s) and the evaluator should discuss and understand why each source of evidence is included. For example:
Do sources of evidence overlap and provide multiple measures of the same standards?
Or are sources of evidence supplementing each other to capture the full range of
standards addressed by the Student Learning Objective?
The teachers(s) and evaluators should also discuss how evidence will be reviewed and compared at the End-of-Year Conference if the results across two or more sources of evidence are conflicting. Some evidence, such as end-of-year assessments, may not be available at the time of the Beginning-of-Year Conference. In these cases, the educator and evaluator should agree upon a date when the assessment will be ready for approval. This must be no later than the Mid-Year-Conference, or the mid-point of the interval of instruction, if it is less than one school year.
Ongoing Monitoring of Student Learning Objectives At the Beginning-of-Year Conference, the teacher and evaluator should discuss how the teacher plans to monitor students’ progress toward the Student Learning Objective. This may include administering interim assessments aligned to the content of the Student Learning Objective, monitoring students’ grades as an indicator of their mastery of course content, or other ways of collecting information about student performance. Throughout the year, the teacher will collect information about students’ learning according to the plan and bring those data to conferences in order to discuss students’ progress. Together, the teacher and evaluator should examine whether students are on track and identify strategies for ensuring targets are met.
Reviewing Student Learning Objectives at the Mid-Year Conference Teachers should closely monitor students’ learning throughout the instructional interval and make necessary instructional adjustments when students are not progressing as expected. The Mid-Year Conference offers an opportunity for teachers to review and discuss their students’ learning progress with their evaluators. Teachers and evaluators should work together to ensure students’ learning needs are effectively addressed through instructional practice.
24
The Mid-Year Conference presents an opportunity to revise Student Learning Objectives if it becomes clear that they can be improved or are no longer appropriate. At the Mid-Year Conference, the teacher and evaluator will review available student learning data and reexamine the Student Learning Objectives to determine if adjustments should be made. Adjustments may be made if:
Based on new information gathered since they were set, objectives fail to address the most important learning challenges in the classroom/school.
New, more reliable sources of evidence are available.
Class compositions have changed significantly.
Teaching schedule or assignment has changed significantly.
The Process for Scoring Student Learning Objectives
Prior to the End-of-Year Conference, teachers should submit all available student learning data to the evaluator. Student Learning Objectives that make use of highly standardized assessments require fewer sources of documentation than those that rely upon less standardized assessments. The table below highlights the different levels of standardization and the levels of documentation that would be needed in each category:
Flexibility Factor Submission of Data:
Some assessment data (e.g.,
end-of-year assessments) will
not be available at the time of
the End-of-Year Conference. In
these cases, the educator and
evaluator should meet and
discuss other components of
the evaluation system and
review any data related to the
Student Learning Objectives.
When data become available,
the educator should summarize
it and send it to the evaluator
for review and the assignment
of an overall rating.
25
Documentation Needed to Score Student Learning Objectives
Level of Assessment
Standardization & Level of
Documentation Needed
Low Standardization (Individual- or teacher-
team made test) More Documentation
Medium Standardization (F&P Language,
DRA, District Common
Assessment) Moderate
Documentation
High Standardization (AP Exam, NWEA)
Less Documentation
Documentation Type I
Summary statement
referencing attainment of
target
Summary statement
referencing
attainment of target
Summary statement
referencing attainment of
target
Documentation Source Type II
Compiled score data Compiled score data Compiled score data
Documentation Source Type III
Rubric for scoring Rubric for scoring
Documentation Source Type IV
Anchor papers (i.e.,
examples of scored student
work)
Anchor papers (i.e.,
examples of scored
student work)
Documentation Source Type V
Assessment
A highly standardized assessment does not always mean a high quality assessment – greater standardization does not necessarily indicate higher quality. The quality of an assessment depends on many criteria, including its purpose, intended vs. actual use, and grade level appropriateness. Evaluators should review results on the evidence sources (can be compiled data or the assessment/artifacts themselves) specified in the Student Learning Objectives, and determine the extent to which each objective was met. Evaluators will rate each individual objective as “Did Not Meet”, “Nearly Met”, “Met”, or “Exceeded”.
26
Scoring Individual Student Learning Objectives
The process for scoring individual Student Learning Objectives begins with a review of the
evidence. The following graphic outlines the specific steps an evaluator should take to score
individual Student Learning Objectives:
If multiple sources of evidence are used, evaluators should compare each result to the
respective target and consider:
1. Why was each source of evidence included?
2. Do the sources of evidence overlap and provide multiple measures of the same
standards? If so, in some cases attainment on one source might be sufficient evidence
that a Student Learning Objective was met.
3. Do the sources of evidence supplement each other to capture the full range of standards
addressed by the Student Learning Objective? If so, students should show attainment on
both sources of evidence for the Student Learning Objective to be considered met.
27
Individual Student Learning Objective Scoring Guidance
Scoring Student Learning Objective Sets
Once individual Student Learning Objectives are scored, the Student Learning Objective Set Scoring Tables will be used to determine an overall Student Learning Objective rating. Student Learning Objective set scoring tables are located in Appendix 2. The scoring guidance for Student Learning Objectives includes language that requires professional judgment (e.g., almost all, many, few). These descriptors can be thought of as individual students or as a percent of total students. When there are 25 students or less (approximately one class size) use the number of
Educator Performance Support System For educators using the EPSS, the
system will automatically calculate
overall Student Learning Objective
rating when individual Student
Learning Objective scores are
entered into the system.
28
students to determine if the target was met. When there are more than 25 students, use the percent of total students to determine if the target was met. . For example, “almost all” may be 23 out of 25 students, or 95% of the 100 students in all Algebra I classes. Exceeding a target is reserved for those instances when it stretches students beyond what is typically expected for the course, when achievement gaps are closed, or when students make substantial progress. For example, this may be defined on a standardized test as more than one year’s progress.
Student Learning Objective Set Scoring Guidance
How to Use Student Learning Objective Data The data generated by Student Learning Objectives is used to inform the scoring of Student Learning criteria of the educator evaluation system. However, it is also useful for prompting teacher reflection and may even inform decisions about professional development and resource allocation.
29
If targets were mostly met, the teacher should reflect upon what he/she did to ensure students’ success. He/she should consider which strategies, approaches, and materials were most helpful and consider how these can be replicated or improved upon in the next year. If targets were not met, the teacher should consider what he or she will do differently next year. In most cases, the solution is not to simply set lower targets, as this will not result in adequate student learning. The teacher might begin by looking at their data to determine appropriate next steps. For example, suppose a teacher set a Student Learning Objective focused on elementary reading comprehension. At the end of the year, a substantial number of students did not meet the targets that were set for them. Upon reviewing the data, the teacher notices that nearly all of the students who did not meet their targets were in the lowest tier—students who entered his class reading below grade level. Conversely, almost all of the students who entered his class on or above grade level met their targets. This teacher might decide, based upon this and other corroborating sources of evidence that he should seek out professional development that will help him build skills to better support struggling readers.
The Rhode Island Growth Model The Rhode Island Growth Model (RIGM) is a statistical model that provides an additional way of looking at student achievement. The RIGM enables us to look at growth in addition to proficiency to get a fuller picture of student achievement. Using this model, we can calculate each student’s progress relative to their academic peers on the NECAP Math and Reading tests for grades 3-7. Academic peers are students who have scored similarly on the NECAP in the past. The RIGM provides a fuller, more descriptive picture of student achievement. Because all students’ scores are compared only to those of their academic peers, students at every level of proficiency have the opportunity to demonstrate growth in their achievement. Beginning in the 2013-14 school year, all teachers who contribute to student learning in math and reading in grades 3-7 will receive an RIGM rating. Administrators who oversee students in these grades will also receive an RIGM rating.
How Rhode Island Growth Model Ratings are Calculated RIGM ratings are calculated by using median student growth percentiles. RIDE is consulting with the Technical Advisory Committee to finalize the cut points that will differentiate among “High”, “Typical”, and “Low” growth. Detailed information about the RIGM is also available at http://www.ride.ri.gov/assessment/RIGM.aspx How Student Growth Percentiles are Calculated: The RIGM uses a statistical model to create student growth percentiles (SGPs). In creating SGPs students are compared to their academic peers who scored similarly on the NECAP in the past (the model goes as far back as possible to calculate a “cohort” for each student). Academic history is the only factor by which
30
students are grouped. Low-performing students are compared to other low-performing students; high-performing students are compared to other high-performing students, etc. Student demographic characteristics, for example, are not used to create a student cohort. Then the most recent NECAP score distribution for each cohort is used to determine the percentile at which an individual student scored within his or her cohort. That percentile number is their SGP. Student growth percentiles range from 1 to 99, with higher values indicating more growth relative to academic peers. For example, a student with an SGP of 90 showed more growth than 90% of his or her academic peers. With the RIGM, a student can have a high SGP when performance is not yet at a proficient level.
How Teacher Scores are Calculated: For a group of students (e.g., in a classroom or school), SGP data will be aggregated (summarized) to determine the median SGP of the group of students. To do so, all tested students’ SGPs are arranged in order (e.g., 1-99) to determine the median SGP that is most representative of the classroom or school. The median SGP is the point at which half of the students’ SGPs are above and half are below. For example, the median SGP in the sample roster below would be 60. Note that because a student’s growth score is calculated based on his/academic peer, both low and high achieving students have the opportunity to demonstrate high growth. For example:
Student NECAP SGP Emily 465 15
Peter 440 37
Sam 429 60 Median SGP
Elizabeth 455 72
Alex 433 91
How Math and Reading Growth Scores are Combined: For teachers who are responsible for student learning in both reading and mathematics, both scores will be combined into one growth rating. For example:
Student SGP Emily (Math) 20
Peter (Reading) 32
Emily (Reading) 52
Median SGP = 52.5
Elizabeth (Math) 53
Elizabeth (Reading) 64
Peter (Math) 85
31
Student Learning FAQs Q: How do Student Learning Objectives connect to the Common Core? Student Learning Objectives should be aligned to state and national standards, including the RI GSEs/GLEs and the Common Core State Standards in English language arts and mathematics. RI LEAs are in the process of transitioning to the CCSS in ELA and mathematics, in preparation for the PARCC assessment. If you are teaching in a school or district that has already transitioned at your grade level, your Student Learning Objectives should be aligned to the CCSS. If you are teaching in a grade level that has not transitioned, or in a content area not covered by the CCSS, you should align your Student Learning Objectives to the RI GSEs/GLEs or other national standards. Q: What if I teach a course that cannot be aligned to my building administrator’s Student Learning Objectives? Your evaluator should work with you to develop Student Learning Objectives that complement the school’s priorities when applicable. However, your Student Learning Objectives should only be directly aligned to the building administrator’s Student learning Objective when it is pertaining to the content and grade levels that you teach. Q: What if I am the sole teacher for a particular grade and subject combination? Should I set Student Learning Objectives alone? We do not encourage anyone to set a Student Learning Objective in isolation. If you do not have a team with which to develop Student Learning Objectives, we encourage you to collaborate with teachers of the same course across the district or with teachers of other grades/content areas within your school. Though they might teach different content, they may be able to help you review data, identify priority areas, create high-quality assessments, or administer and score the evidence according to best practices.
Q: What if I teach a course that does not last a full year? Do I still set Student Learning Objectives? Yes, but the timeline should be condensed to match the duration of the course. Teachers can either set a Student Learning Objective that applies across groups of students and aggregate results to measure attainment (e.g. a year-long Student Learning Objective that combines your fall and spring semester students), or set Student Learning Objectives that apply to a single semester or a shorter interval of instruction (ex. 6-8 weeks). Teachers who provide RTI support assignment might consider setting program-based Student Learning Objectives. For example, they could set a goal for the percentage of students who meet their RTI goals within the original timeframe of the intervention. Q: What other Student Learning Objective resources are available? RIDE has sample Student Learning Objectives and additional resources on the RIDE website at: http://www.ride.ri.gov/EducatorQuality/EducatorEvaluation/SLO.aspx. Q: How many years of NECAP scores will be used to determine a teacher’s median SGP? Two years of growth scores will be used to calculate a teacher’s growth rating.
32
Q: How is the Rhode Island Growth Model different from the “Value-Added” assessment being used in many other states? Both the value added model and the RI Growth Model examine academic growth rather than looking at an absolute achievement score. However, in the “value-added model”, students are grouped according to demographic data such as poverty and race, and then compared against students in a similar demographic cohort. In Rhode Island, we chose to compare students to their academic peers. Students are grouped and compared based upon NECAP performance alone.
33
This page intentionally left blank
34
Calculating a Final Effectiveness Rating
The final effectiveness rating will combine an individual’s Student Learning score and Professional Practice and Professional Responsibilities score. Educators will receive one of four final effectiveness ratings:
Highly Effective (H)
Effective (E)
Developing (D)
Ineffective (I)
The chart below shows how the scores for Professional Practice/Professional Responsibilities, Student Learning Objectives, and (when applicable) the Rhode Island Growth Model combine to produce the final effectiveness rating. The section that follows explains how a series of matrices is used to calculate this rating.
Components of Final Effectiveness Rating
Professional Practice Rating
Professional Responsibilities
Rating
Student Learning Objective Rating
RI Growth Model Rating
(When available)
PP and PR Score
Student Learning Score
Final
Rating
Educator Performance Support System The EPSS will automatically complete
many of the steps involved with
calculating the final effectiveness
rating. For example, after evaluators
input individual Student Learning
Objective scores, the EPSS will
calculate the overall Student
Learning Objectives rating.
The EPSS will also be used to collect
and report final effectiveness ratings
to RIDE.
35
Step 1 – Calculate a Student Learning Objective Rating
Evaluators will score each individual Student Learning Objective as “Exceeded”, “Met”, “Nearly Met”, or Did Not Meet”.
Once individual Student Learning Objectives are scored, an overall Student Learning Objective rating will be calculated using the scoring tables located in Appendix 2.
Sets of Student Learning Objectives will receive one of the following ratings:
Step 2 – Rhode Island Growth Model Rating (when applicable)
Beginning in the 2013-14 school year, all teachers who contribute to student learning in math and reading in grades 3-7 will receive an RIGM rating of “Low Growth,” “Typical Growth,” or “High Growth.” These ratings will be supplied to evaluators by the Rhode Island Department of Education.
Step 3 – Determine an Overall Student Learning Score
For the 2012-13 school year, the Student Learning Objective rating will be the only component of the overall Student Learning Score.
Where applicable (beginning in 2013-2014), the Student Learning Objective rating will be combined with a Rhode Island Growth Model rating using the matrix pictured on the following page. For example, if an educator received a Student Learning Objective rating of “Full Attainment” and a Growth Model rating of “Typical Growth”, these two ratings would combine to produce an overall Student Learning score of 4. For teachers without a Rhode Island Growth Model rating, their Student Learning Objective rating will be their overall Student Learning score.
Exceptional Attainment (4)
Full Attainment (3)
Partial Attainment (2)
Minimal Attainment (1)
36
Student Learning Matrix
Student Learning Objectives
Exceptional Attainment
Full Attainment
Partial Attainment
Minimal Attainment
Gro
wth
Mo
del
High Growth 4 4 3 2
Typical Growth 4 3 2 1
Low Growth
2
2 1 1
Step 4 – Combine Scores to Determine Final Effectiveness Rating
Depending on the model being implemented, a specific process will be used to determine an educator’s Professional Practice and Professional Responsibilities score. This score and the Student Learning score will be combined in the matrix pictured below to establish the final effectiveness rating. In this example, the educator received a Student Learning score of 3 and a combined Professional Practice and Professional Responsibilities score of 3, which result in a final effectiveness rating of “Effective.”
The Rhode Island Growth Model will not be included in educator evaluations until the 2013-14
school year.
Key HE – Highly Effective E – Effective D – Developing I - Ineffective
37
This page intentionally left blank
38
Final Note: Measures of Student Learning Edition II of the Measures of Student Learning Guide represents our best shared thinking and effort to support and challenge all educators toward their highest achievements. As with any assessment of such a nuanced and human practice, challenges will remain. We look forward to working through them with you. With a shared commitment to student and educator learning − we are confident that together we will meet all children’s academic need for an excellent education in Rhode Island’s public schools. Thank you for embracing the challenging and powerful work of an educator. As we move into full implementation in 2012-13, we are grateful to have you in our schools and classrooms.
39
This page intentionally left blank
40
Appendix 1: Assessment Quality Guidance
The Assessment Quality Guidance can be used when selecting or creating an assessment. These criteria are some of the most important aspects of an assessment to consider. Some of the criteria are inherent to the assessment (e.g., the purpose), while others relate to an educator’s use of the assessment (e.g., the scoring process). Assessment Quality Guidance
High
Quality
Assessment purpose is aligned to its intended use Measures what is intended Items represent a variety of DOK levels Sufficient number of items to reliably assess content At least one very challenging item Grade level appropriate Scoring is objective (includes scoring guides), and uses a collaborative scoring
process Extends and deepens understanding of each student’s current level of
achievement
Moderate Quality
Assessment purpose is loosely aligned to its intended use Mostly measures what is intended Items represent 2 or 3 levels of DOK Insufficient number of items to reliably assess content Grade level appropriate Scoring may include scoring guides to decrease subjectivity, and/or may
include collaborative scoring
Low
Quality
Assessment purpose is not aligned to its intended use Does not measure what is intended Items represent only 1 level of Depth of Knowledge (DOK)* Insufficient number of items to reliably assess content Not grade level appropriate Scoring is open to subjectivity, and/or not collaboratively scored
*DOK refers to Webb’s (2002) Depth of Knowledge Framework, which includes four levels of cognitive demand: Level 1: Recall, Level 2: Skill/Concept, Level 3: Strategic Thinking, Level 4: Extended Thinking. See CAS Criteria & Guidance p. 15.
41
This page intentionally left blank
42
Appendix 2: Student Learning Objective Scoring Lookup
Tables
Table 1. For the educator with 2 Student Learning Objectives
Student Learning
Objective 1
Student Learning Objective
2 Final 1 Exceeded Exceeded E 2 Exceeded Met F
3 Exceeded Nearly Met P 4 Exceeded Not Met P 5 Met Met F 6 Met Nearly Met P 7 Met Not Met P 8 Nearly Met Nearly Met P 9 Nearly Met Not Met M 10 Not Met Not Met M
43
Table 2. For the educator with 3 Student Learning Objectives
Student Learning
Objective 1
Student Learning
Objective 2
Student Learning
Objective 3 Final
1 Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded E 2 Exceeded Exceeded Met E 3 Exceeded Exceeded Nearly Met F 4 Exceeded Exceeded Not Met P 5 Exceeded Met Met F 6 Exceeded Met Nearly Met F 7 Exceeded Met Not Met P 8 Exceeded Nearly Met Nearly Met P 9 Exceeded Nearly Met Not Met P 10 Exceeded Not Met Not Met M 11 Met Met Met F 12 Met Met Nearly Met P 13 Met Met Not Met P 14 Met Nearly Met Nearly Met P 15 Met Nearly Met Not Met P 16 Met Not Met Not Met M 17 Nearly Met Nearly Met Nearly Met P 18 Nearly Met Nearly Met Not Met P 19 Nearly Met Not Met Not Met M 20 Not Met Not Met Not Met M
44
Table 3. For the educator with 4 Student Learning Objectives
STUDENT LEARNING OBJECTIVE
1
STUDENT LEARNING OBJECTIVE
2
STUDENT LEARNING OBJECTIVE
3
STUDENT LEARNING OBJECTIVE
4 Final
1 Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded E 2 Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded Met E
3 Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded Nearly Met F 4 Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded Not Met F 5 Exceeded Exceeded Met Met F 6 Exceeded Exceeded Met Nearly Met F 7 Exceeded Exceeded Met Not Met P 8 Exceeded Exceeded Nearly Met Nearly Met P 9 Exceeded Exceeded Nearly Met Not Met P 10 Exceeded Exceeded Not Met Not Met P 11 Exceeded Met Met Met F 12 Exceeded Met Met Nearly Met F
13 Exceeded Met Met Not Met P 14 Exceeded Met Nearly Met Nearly Met P 15 Exceeded Met Nearly Met Not Met P 16 Exceeded Met Not Met Not Met P 17 Exceeded Nearly Met Nearly Met Nearly Met P 18 Exceeded Nearly Met Nearly Met Not Met P 19 Exceeded Nearly Met Not Met Not Met M 20 Exceeded Not Met Not Met Not Met M 21 Met Met Met Met F 22 Met Met Met Nearly Met F 23 Met Met Met Not Met P 24 Met Met Nearly Met Nearly Met P 25 Met Met Nearly Met Not Met P 26 Met Met Not Met Not Met P 27 Met Nearly Met Nearly Met Nearly Met P 28 Met Nearly Met Nearly Met Not Met P 29 Met Nearly Met Not Met Not Met M 30 Met Not Met Not Met Not Met M 31 Nearly Met Nearly Met Nearly Met Nearly Met P 32 Nearly Met Nearly Met Nearly Met Not Met P 33 Nearly Met Nearly Met Not Met Not Met M 34 Nearly Met Not Met Not Met Not Met M 35 Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met M
45
